[Yeahsureok]

> that it can somehow "escape" the legal frameworks of human beings

And yet multibillion dollar companies whose entire business is illegally running hotels or taxis get nowhere near the vitriol?

Airbnb clearly causes harm for locals in popular tourist cities.

[eropple]

> And yet multibillion dollar companies whose entire business is illegally running hotels or taxis get nowhere near the vitriol?

I have perturbed many electrons around here on both illegal taxi companies and shitty world-burning cryptography. I contain the capacity to think more than one thing is awful society-corroding trash.

Do you not?

[Analemma_]

Yes, Uber and Airbnb should not have been allowed to get away with it either. That doesn't mean we should allow new companies to run the same "break the law and try to grow as fast as possible so by the time the government catches up, you're already entrenched" playbook for the sake of foolish consistency; just the opposite: it increases the urgency with which companies trying to do that should be rapidly brought to heel. Which is exactly what is happening.

[viro]

Sure, but Airbnb isn't trying to replace a core societal institution and subvert hundreds of years of financial law. While also if you're American violating the constitution...

[malermeister]

Look, I hate crypto too, but I think housing still qualifies as a "core societal institution".

[viro]

Airbnb is more hotels. But I can see how it muddies those waters.

[selcuka]

That is whataboutism. Two wrongs won't make a right.

[Daishiman]

You must not have been reading HN for the past two years then.

[TeMPOraL]

Make it at least five; I've been calling Uber and AirBnB all kinds of things for at least as long, and I was neither the first nor the most vocal one here.